STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ON THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS (IGN) ON “THE QUESTION OF EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION ON AND INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL”, 79TH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 21 JANUARY 2025

Co-chairs,

         As this is the first time that we are meeting as a group this year, please allow me to begin by expressing our appreciation to both of you, the Permanent Representative of Kuwait, as well as the Permanent Representative of Austria, for your leadership and tireless work as Co- chairs of this important process. I want to assure both of you of my delegation’s full support.

2       Last year was an important and busy year for the IGN process. We made important strides in strengthening the efficiency, transparency and inclusiveness of this process through a structured dialogue, greater innovation and increased engagement with Groups and Member States. Most importantly, our leaders adopted the Pact for the Future last September. The commitments on Security Council reform contained in the Pact represent, to date, among the strongest and most forward-looking language on this issue since 1963. The Pact underlines our collective agreement that the Security Council should be reformed in order to make it “more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable”.

3      It is therefore entirely appropriate that we are beginning a new cycle of work this year by focusing on the question of the veto. If we are able to build some convergence on the question of the veto, we can potentially unlock the impasse in our process and enable some progress on the question of Security Council reform. There is a more pressing reason why I think we need to focus on the veto, as it is beginning to have a very serious effect on the credibility of the United Nations, and in particular, on the Security Council itself. It is a reality that the overuse, misuse, or the threat of use of the veto has had a detrimental effect on the effective functioning of the Council, leading to paralysis and gridlock. In fact, the veto was exercised, and others have pointed this out, eight times in relation to seven draft resolutions covering a range of issues, including pressing issues of the day, such as the issue of peace in the Middle East. This is the highest number in the past decade in terms of the use of the veto. This is simply unacceptable as a situation.

4       The paradox is that each time the veto is cast in the Security Council, it amounts to an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Security Council, which has been entrusted the mandate for the primary maintenance of international peace and security. So when the veto is cast, it may well be a demonstration of individual power on the part of a particular permanent member, but collectively, it results in a situation where the Council simply abdicates its responsibility, leading to questions about what exactly the role of the Council is, what exactly the role of the General Assembly is, and the relationship between these two principal organs.

Co-chairs,

5       You may know very well that Singapore is not part of any informal grouping within the IGN process. We have always  spoken in this process as an independent voice presenting the perspective of a small state. Our objective as Singapore is to contribute to reform process that will enable the Council to be stronger, more effective and inclusive, and for any future Council to be effective, it is our view that we must avoid the mistakes of the past. We have previously said in the IGN about how the veto has prevented the Council from discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is for this reason that Singapore is not in favour of extending the right of the veto to any new permanent members. We are not persuaded that increasing the number of veto-wielding permanent members will make the Council more responsive or more effective. On the contrary, it will exacerbate the problem that we are already facing.

6       The question of the veto is fundamentally a question of equity, and I think several others have referred to this issue as well. Now, it is a fact that we have all accepted the veto right from the beginning in San Francisco, and for those of us who joined much later, we have accepted it as part of the institutional architecture for collective peace and security. However, we do not believe that creating new vetoes will lead to greater situations of equity. On the contrary, we believe that it will entrench further the situation of inequity as well as create situations of gridlock. From the perspective of a small state, we believe that what is needed is a Security Council that is more effective and efficient, and we do not see additional vetoes as contributing to such a Council.

7       My Foreign Minister, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, had stated at the UN Security Council Open Debate last September that we must constrain the exercise of the veto. We believe that it is important to reach an understanding on how the veto is exercised in the Council. If we can potentially make progress on some elements of convergence on how to limit the use of the veto and how to prevent its abuse, then I think we have a good chance of making further progress in terms of reform of the Council as a whole. Action 39 Paragraph 67(g) of the Pact of the Future clearly outlines the commitment to intensify our efforts to reach agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use. This provides us a good basis for our discussion today, to begin to draw some parameters for the use of the veto for permanent members of the Council. Allow me to make three specific points.

8       First, accountability in the use of the veto. Singapore is encouraged that there has been progress to ensure greater accountability in the exercise of the veto and will continue to support such initiatives. In particular, the Veto Initiative led by Liechtenstein is a significant step in increasing the accountability and transparency of the Council. It's a very good reminder that the Council acts on behalf of the UN membership in exercising its primary responsibility, and when it doesn't, then it is incumbent on the General Assembly, the other principal organ of the United Nations, to exercise leadership.

9       Second, refraining from using the veto under certain circumstances, is an important aspect of drawing parameters. We strongly support the ACT's Code of Conduct and the French-Mexican initiative to suspend the veto in cases of mass atrocities. We also welcome the commitments made by France and the United Kingdom not to use the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and we would like to see this act of leadership being emulated by other permanent members of the Security Council. Singapore itself had previously put forward the idea of a Declaration of Responsibilities to be adopted by the General Assembly. This Declaration, we believe, would provide for all permanent members, as well as non-permanent members, to abide by a code of conduct as part of any reform package which will be eventually adopted.

10     Third, we call on existing permanent members to lead by example by upholding the UN Charter and respecting international law. The frequent use of the veto to shield violations of the Charter and obstruct the Council's own resolutions prevents the Council from discharging its mandate as outlined in Article 24(1) of the Charter. We, as many others, strongly urge the permanent members of the Security Council to respect the plain meaning of Article 27(3) of the Charter, and encourage them to refrain from voting on a dispute to which they are party. This practice is contrary to the spirit of the Charter, and only serves to further undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Council.

Co-chairs,

11     As we approach the 80^th anniversary of the United Nations, the Council and the UN itself must reflect on the current state of affairs, and adapt to emerging realities. If the IGN process is to make any progress, all sides have to show flexibility and make compromises. We must make a genuine effort to bridge differences and find convergences. Most importantly, we need to move forward and engage in serious discussions within this process. I assure you of my delegation’s full commitment to work with you and other Member States to take our work forward.

12     Thank you very much.

.     .     .     .    .